Crop Factor
Jun 22, 2019 08:34:07 #
Silverman wrote:
If I am correct, "Crop-factor" affects t... (show quote)
The fact that the FOV of the 50mm lens on your APS-C camera is similar to the FOV of the 75mm lens on the 35mm is only useful if you already know what the FOV of the 50mm or 75mm lens on the 35mm camera. If you are one who never used the 35mm camera then it's totally useless and confusing.
Jun 22, 2019 08:39:58 #
Sorry, but a car engine size and horsepower is a very bad example. It is not nearly so simple with car engines or sensors. A top fuel dragster has an engine that is about 540 cubic inches and produces roughly 10,000 horsepower. A similar cubic inch supercharged or twin turbo engine will produce 3,000 to 4,000 horsepower. A 350 cubic inch motor in a street vehicle might produce 250 to 400 horsepower.
It depends on many factors including the design of the intakes, valve train and heads, internal components and the fuel to be burned. The reason a top fuel, nitromethane burning, motor can make 10,000 horsepower is in part because so much nitromethane can be forced into the engine and burned versus other fuels. Air density, amount of water grains in the air and temperatures also effect horsepower. Turbo or supercharged motors will perform better at higher altitudes than nitrous injected motors, because they are forcing in more air, and more air plus more fuel equals more potential horsepower.
My son has run 900 plus cubic inch nitrous injected motors and supercharged motors. He was crew chief on a twin turbo car that won the World Series of Pro Mod race in Colorado last August. So I know enough to be dangerous. Simple comparison and generalizations may seem like a good idea but engine horsepower and camera sensors are more complex in reality.
It depends on many factors including the design of the intakes, valve train and heads, internal components and the fuel to be burned. The reason a top fuel, nitromethane burning, motor can make 10,000 horsepower is in part because so much nitromethane can be forced into the engine and burned versus other fuels. Air density, amount of water grains in the air and temperatures also effect horsepower. Turbo or supercharged motors will perform better at higher altitudes than nitrous injected motors, because they are forcing in more air, and more air plus more fuel equals more potential horsepower.
My son has run 900 plus cubic inch nitrous injected motors and supercharged motors. He was crew chief on a twin turbo car that won the World Series of Pro Mod race in Colorado last August. So I know enough to be dangerous. Simple comparison and generalizations may seem like a good idea but engine horsepower and camera sensors are more complex in reality.
jeep_daddy wrote:
Yes, the smaller the sensor, the more limited it is. The larger the sensor, the better. I'm not trying to say that your micro 4/3rds isn't good, just sayin' that the larger the sensor the better.
It's like a muscle car engine, the larger the engine, the more HP.
It's like a muscle car engine, the larger the engine, the more HP.
Jun 22, 2019 08:47:58 #
calvinbell wrote:
I have a micro 4/3rds camera and am wondering about the concept of crop factor. Does it affect image quality?
For us old school film photographers it is easy. Consider 35mm film vs 8x10" film. I've shot both!
Jun 22, 2019 08:51:29 #
calvinbell wrote:
I have a micro 4/3rds camera and am wondering about the concept of crop factor. Does it affect image quality?
Pixels determine resolution, so in that sense, no. More pixels = more resolution.
If you are concerned about noise in the image, the larger sensors will have an advantage. However, the crop sensors are getting better all the time. I have an image I shot with my EM1-MII using auto-ISO. I didn't realize until I looked at the Exif info that the camera had bumped it up to ISO 6400. Nothing in the image clued me that it was shot at that speed!
So, in a nutshell, NO - not a reduction in image quality (check out my website for photos shot with 4/3 cameras www rond-photography.smugmug.com). I am pretty confident that there is no loss of quality.
Jun 22, 2019 09:24:57 #
mflowe
Loc: Port Deposit, MD
jeep_daddy wrote:
Yes, the smaller the sensor, the more limited it is. The larger the sensor, the better. I'm not trying to say that your micro 4/3rds isn't good, just sayin' that the larger the sensor the better.
It's like a muscle car engine, the larger the engine, the more HP.
It's like a muscle car engine, the larger the engine, the more HP.
That doesn't mean the larger engine is better. The smaller one could be better in numerous ways. Quieter, more torque, smoother more fuel effecient, longer lasting, etc.
Jun 22, 2019 09:26:12 #
aphelps
Loc: Central Ohio
rmorrison1116 wrote:
Crop factor has nothing to do with image quality. ... (show quote)
Electronic noise is always there. Read/write noise and shot noise are a matter of physics. Larger sensors do not filter out this noise. Larger pixels can be more efficient in capturing light resulting in a higher signal to noise ratio which tends to mask the noise better. More powerful processors reduce processing time.
Jun 22, 2019 09:42:14 #
Look Calvin, if you ask 20 people about the topic perhaps you have 20 different technical answer, every one with good foundation. But unlees you want to print huge photo your sensor is perfect for every shot you want. And the most important is that your shots 99% depends on the guide behind the camara.
Jun 22, 2019 09:45:24 #
calvinbell wrote:
I have a micro 4/3rds camera and am wondering about the concept of crop factor. Does it affect image quality?
Oh boy. All the full frame pimps will come out to play...
20 MP maximum resolution (currently)
Two stops less dynamic range (12-bit sampling instead of 14) than full frame; 2/3 to 1 stop less DR than APS-C.
Two stops lower maximum practical ISO than full frame; 2/3 to 1 stop lower maximum practical ISO than APS-C.
Because achieving the same field of view requires half the focal length of full frame, you get two stops deeper depth of field at a given aperture. (Exposure is the same).
Life is full of little trade-offs. None of the above bothers me for what I do. I’m using two Lumix GH4s to make a 7-minute film this weekend (if my adult kids can finish the script!).
Your knowledge, experience, skills, practice, education, training, passion, point of view, and commitment to excellence and detail are FAR MORE important than gear.
Jun 22, 2019 10:05:26 #
As I like to say every camera body is a compromise...
burkphoto wrote:
Oh boy. All the full frame pimps will come out to ... (show quote)
Jun 22, 2019 10:08:50 #
NCMtnMan
Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC
Largest sensor in the world won't make a lousy photographer take great pictures. There are situations where a full frame camera may be better suited and vice versa. Like a framing hammer or a tack hammer. Depends on what you're nailing.
Jun 22, 2019 10:14:27 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
BebuLamar says it correctly. The 35mm film camera is the size of what is referred to as full frame (Arbitrary),but that was the old size negative we had. So now that became full size. You pick up an advantage with telephoto, as a 100mm is 150, 160 or whatever depending on the crop factor and lose in wide angle as a 10mm can be 15mm etc. I have a 7D and a 5D and my lens caps are marked as 100/160 etc. so I know what Have with either camera at a glance.
Jun 22, 2019 10:14:27 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
BebuLamar says it correctly. The 35mm film camera is the size of what is referred to as full frame (Arbitrary),but that was the old size negative we had. So now that became full size. You pick up an advantage with telephoto, as a 100mm is 150, 160 or whatever depending on the crop factor and lose in wide angle as a 10mm can be 15mm etc. I have a 7D and a 5D and my lens caps are marked as 100/160 etc. so I know what Have with either camera at a glance.
Jun 22, 2019 10:14:52 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
BebuLamar says it correctly. The 35mm film camera is the size of what is referred to as full frame (Arbitrary),but that was the old size negative we had. So now that became full size. You pick up an advantage with telephoto, as a 100mm is 150, 160 or whatever depending on the crop factor and lose in wide angle as a 10mm can be 15mm etc. I have a 7D and a 5D and my lens caps are marked as 100/160 etc. so I know what Have with either camera at a glance.
Jun 22, 2019 10:32:57 #
NCMtnMan wrote:
Largest sensor in the world won't make a lousy photographer take great pictures. There are situations where a full frame camera may be better suited and vice versa. Like a framing hammer or a tack hammer. Depends on what you're nailing.
Exactly. If all I did were landscapes, action sports, and birds in flight, I'd use something completely different.
Jun 22, 2019 10:38:21 #
In general the answer is NO unless using a point and shoot camera with a very small sensor.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.