rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Oh geez, The Northrups. If either one of them told me what time it was, I'd pray I had an accurate watch to verify it for myself.
--Bob

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

I know that this is complex but it was meant to be a simple comparison. I knew someone would pick this apart and you are duly noted and correct. So I won't argue with you about this.

But I'm sure you've heard the old saying that there's "No replacement for displacement".

But you and I know that with new technology this has changed a lot and that many 4 bangers are now producing as much power as an older carbureted V8. It's amazing what they can do now with computer tuning and advanced valve timing.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Yes indeed. Not all sensors are created equally.

Anhanga Brasil Loc: Cabo Frio - Brazil

I know. I see some incoherences here and there, but
it is worth a look just to understand what is crop factor.

BebuLamar

But if you never had that old negative then the crop factor only a cause for confusion. I think that a large number of people who use APS-C and M4/3 never had that 35mm negative.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The size of the sensor effects several things....

Given the same or similar resolution, a larger sensor is less "crowded" and can use larger individual pixel sites. This makes for better light gathering ability and less noise at higher ISOs.

A larger sensor can make larger prints and might have higher resolution. For example, there are 46MP and 50MP "full frame" cameras. And there are 24MP APS-C cameras (supposedly a 32MP coming soon)... In comparison, right now micro Four/Thirds cameras essentially top out around 18 or 20MP.

Depth of Field doesn't actually change directly due to sensor size, but it does change for indirect reasons. When you use a smaller sensor, it will be more difficult to get shallow DoF effects, such as a strongly blurred down background. Roughly speaking, you'll need about one stop larger lens aperture than an APS-C camera or two stops larger than a so-called "full frame" sensor camera, to achieve the same amount of background blur. The reason for this is not the sensor size, though... It's because of lens focal length and/or distance to the subject. When you use a smaller sensor in the camera, in order to frame the subject the same way you did with the APS-C or FF camera, you would use a shorter focal length and/or move farther from the subject. Either of those changes will effect DoF. The good news is that the smaller sensor camera will be more adept at greater Depth of Field effects. You won't need to stop down a lens as much, if your goal is greater DoF.

However, diffraction is another issue to consider. Diffraction occurs at smaller lens apertures and robs fine detail from images. The smaller the lens aperture, the greater the loss. Once again, it's not directly related to the sensor size, but is an indirect factor. In this case, it comes down to magnification when the image is used for any purpose. For example, a FF camera with a 24x36mm sensor requires approx. 8X magnification to make an 8x12" print. The same size print from an APS-C camera requires approx. 13X magnification. To make an 8x10 print from a micro 4/3 sensor image requires approx. 16X magnification. The greater the magnification, the more obvious will be any loss of fine detail due to diffraction. (Note: This assumes no cropping in any of the cases, and the aspect ratio of the m4/3 sensor is different, hence the 8x10 print instead of 8x12. In order to make the same 8x12 would require slightly more magnification and some cropping of the m4/3 image.)

With each format there is what's called a "diffraction limited aperture" (DLA). This is the smallest lens aperture that's free of diffraction, after which diffraction begins to occur and will increase as progressively smaller apertures are used. With a camera in the 18 to 20MP range: a full frame's DLA is approx. f/10... an APS-C camera's DLA is approx. f/7.1.... and an m4/3 camera's DLA is approx. f/5.6.

Again, these are merely the point beyond which diffraction starts to occur and it's not much at first... so an aperture such as f/11 or even f/16 is likely usable on FF... an aperture such as f/10 or f/14 is likely usable on an APS-C camera... and f/8 to f/11 is likely to be acceptable and usable with an m4/3. In other words, diffraction's effects will be hardly noticeable one stop past the DLA... will become more noticeable two stops past the DLA... and diffraction is more likely to be a concern three or more stops beyond a camera's DLA. The DLA doesn't change due to the change in sensor size, but any diffraction that's occurring will be more or less obvious due to the different amount of magnification needed to enlarge the images from the different sensors to any particular size.

Lens focal length doesn't change... a 50mm lens is 50mm, regardless what format sensor it's used upon.

However, a focal length "acts differently" depending upon the sensor format. That 50mm is a "standard" lens on a so-called full frame camera. It's a short telephoto on an APS-C (equiv. to 75 or 80mm on FF). It's still 50mm, but will serve as a slightly longer "moderate" telephoto on m4/3 (equiv. to 100mm on FF).

"Crop factors" are really only needed when switching formats. And it's really nothing new.... we had the same considerations with different film formats, back in the Jurassic Era. In fact, on a medium format Hasselblad film camera, that same 50mm lens would serve as a moderately wide angle lens (equiv. to approx 28mm on FF). Or, on a large format 4x5 film camera it would be an ultrawide (approx. equiv. to 14.5mm on FF).

Conversely, there are tiny little digital sensors used in some point 'n' shoot cameras that "leverage a lot out of a little" lens. For example, on a camera with a 1/2.3" sensor, the same 50mm lens will "act like" a rather powerful telephoto (equiv. to approx. 280mm on FF).

William Royer Loc: Kansas

This subject is not new to digital. Durning film days I had a Contax system consisting of the N1 35mm and the Contax 645 Medium Format. Their Contax could be used on both with the Contax adapter. (Wonderful camera’s and lenses!!)
The same FIeld of View concept applied then. For example, mounting the MF 80mm on the it has a 35mm FOV roughly equivalent to normal 50mm FOV. But, when mounting that same lens on the Contax N1 35mm, it had a moderate telephoto FOV of 80mm.
It is simply the math of the size of what record the image shot through a particular lens — be that various sizes of film or of a digital sensor.

Bill P

I too have m4/3. I don't pay any attention to the so called crop factor, or make a big thing out of it or try to fill it with science and math like so many posters. They all make lenses that are the equivalent of whatever in 35. I just put a lens on and TAKE PICTURES.

As one might expect, the move to digital has made photography prone to over-complicating things with stuff that is irrelevant.

BebuLamar

I don't want to talk about crop factor but if the OP asked if the sensor size affect quality? Then the answer is a general yes. But that only general. If you compare the image from the original Canon 5D and one with the Olympus OMD-EM-1X I don't think the Canon is better. Just like in the old days cameras with larger film would yield better quality image in the ideal condition. However large film or large sensor do have their disadvantages. They are bigger, heavier, up to the 35mm size. Larger still they are slower and have fewer choices of lenses.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Crop factor does not directly affect image quality - but indirectly - and to the extent it describes the size of sensor in use - and size of sensor does directly affect IQ - especially to the extent of noise and your threshold for it.
.

Bill P

. However large film or large sensor do have their disadvantages. They are bigger, heavier, up to the 35mm size. Larger still they are slower and have fewer choices of lenses.[/quote]

Shot for many years with a Hasselblad. Here's my take:
1. Bigger that a 35mm film camera, but not a lot.
2. Heavier? Hell no, a 'blad is lighter than many other cameras.
3.Fewer lens choices, but all bases are sell covered.
4.Slower? As compared to what? It was a few microseconds slower on some things, but I never missed any shots that I would have gotten if I was shooting 35.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

With naturally aspirated motors that old saying can be very true. I have a friend that runs a 978 cu in naturally aspirated motor. Various power adders and technology keep things moving forward just like with camera gear. I always say that 400-500 hp in a street car will scare the heck out most anyone. It gets hard to even comprehend 3000-4000 hp. They can dyno that but the top fuels are just estimates. Sorry if you felt picked on...no offense meant...

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

Yes indeed. Not all sensors are created equally.

I've often read Nikon sensors have an edge over Canon sensors. Canon designs and manufactures all of their (EOS series) image sensors but Nikon does not. Nikon uses sensors designed and manufactured by Nikon, Sony and Toshiba and sensors designed by Sony but manufactured by Nikon. Some sensors are even manufactured by Renesas Electronics and ON Semiconductor.
I shoot both Canon and Nikon and I personally don't see any significant difference between the end results. I even have a couple older Sony digital cameras but I wouldn't compare them to any of my Canon or Nikon produced images, even those from my old EOS 10D.
The bottom line is, stick with a quality camera manufacturer and you're going to get a good quality image sensor, regardless of what company made the sensor.

calvinbell

So your essentially taking a picture that is half the size of a full frame sensor with a sensor with a crop factor of 2?

calvinbell

That make great sense.