William Royer Loc: Kansas

Perhaps more attention needs to be directed toward the huge advances in sensor technology over recent years. Those advance significantly diminish, IMO, the previous large advantages of sheer sensor size. That’s on reason why — despite being a user of Nikon full frame camera’s from the D3 through the D810 — I’m now very comfortable using the Olympus 4/3 M1Mk2 for all the challenges previously reserved for the Nikon FF.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

I am curious how long the "35mm Equivalent" markings will be printed on P/S cameras. Maybe people will just get accustomed to knowing what a given focal length does on the camera at hand. Photographers with adapters and cameras that accept DX/FX/4-3rds lenses will likely already have a good idea and won't care much. Less printing on lenses saves money.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It would be nice to see exact angles of coverage or field of view markings on lenses. That would be the great equalizer.

In the 1960s, Nikon used to pack a booklet with their cameras that put a photo of each lens, a photo or two taken with the lens, and relevant technical specs about the lens, including angles of coverage, on each page.

Bill P

I live for the day when pointless discussions of trivia like the so called crop factor are relegated to the dustbins of history.

lmTrying Loc: WV Northern Panhandle

I have read this entire thread.
Now, here is my take.
I have a rather vintage Canon XSi 12MP 1.6 crop factor sensor. Under normal circumstances it takes very nice photos. I also have a newer Canon SX710HS point and shoot 20MP 1" sensor. Physically smaller sensor with more, smaller pixels. Again, under normal circumstances it also takes very nice photos. Neither camera is going to take photos for use on billboards. Now,,,,, if I'm going to a scale model contest and want to take photos of the models entered in the contest, I will leave the XSi at home and take the point and shoot along with a little LED flashlight. It focuses closer, which means I can get closer, it has better close range Depth of Field, and better low light response.

Bottom line, I come home with a lot of good, sharp photos. More so than I would have with with my XSi. Each camera has its strengths and weaknesses. I originally bought the P&S to take on vacation to Disney World so I wouldn't have to carry the big camera. It keeps surprising me with what it can do.

If you are happy with your 4/3 camera, ignore all the full frame bigots. On the other hand, if your camera is not giving you the results you want, you've exhausted all avenues, and it is within your budget, then by all means, move on up.

BebuLamar

The problem is that most of the P&S and Bridge cameras use a wide variety of sensor sizes and the sensor size of these cameras are not labeled on the cameras. So if only label the focal length it would be difficult to determine the angle of view of these cameras.
Cameras with well known sensor size are not labeled with 35mm equivalent like the APS-C or M4/3.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Someone on UHH clarified for me quite a while ago that 35mm equiv. values are printed only on lenses that are not interchangeable, never on interchangeable lenses. I don't know if that practice is, as you say, because M4/3 are much better known than 1/2.3" or 1/1.7", or because interchangeable lens users are expected to know what their lenses do and don't need or want clutter of extra numbers. If you are suggesting that the use of 35mm equiv. values may live on long after 35mm cameras are forgotten as a sort of standard or reference for P/S and bridge users, that makes sense. I can see in 20 years a member here asking about the origin and meaning of "35mm Equiv." on their new cell phone.

BebuLamar

Perhaps the way to eliminate the "35mm Equivalent" is to make those cameras with fixed lens in only 3 different sensor sizes.
1. Fixed focal length lens in FF.
2. 3x or so zoom in 4/3
3. Superzoom in 1".
The cheaper cameras with smaller sensors perhaps can go away as the market for those has been largely replaced by the cell phone.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

I wasn't looking to eliminate it, just curious about a definition whose roots will be less known as time goes by.

Bill P

Oddly,, my first digital camera, a Sony R1, had 35mm equivalent focal lengths marked on the zoom ring, clearly stated as 35mm equivalent. It had a crop sensor, often rumored but never confirmed as the same sensor as the Nikon D300. It's certainly possible as Nikon and Sony have a long relationship, as Nikon manufacturers machines that make digital sensors. It has been well known that Nikon and Sony jointly designed the D3 sensor, and that some were manufactured in Nikon facilities, likely as test for the new equipment necessary.

I was unhappy when Sony got Minolta and hired their engineers. There was a great change in Sony products as a result.

Bill_de Loc: US

Minolta was a great camera, but never considered the best in the category. Sony, most will agree, is at the top of the mirrorless category. The times they are (and always will be) a-changin'.

---

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Interesting camera. I wonder, though, why it is odd for 35mm equiv markings to be printed on a non-interchangeable lens camera. What is odd, in a good way, is that they put a relatively large sensor into an early model bridge camera. But regardless of sensor size, I have not seen any exceptions to ILC vs NILC with respect to 35mm eq. markings. I mention it only because when I started with digital and was trying to memorize common equivalent Focal Lengths for different sensors with respect to Angular Field of View, it was helpful to learn that interchangeable lenses indicate only their actual FL. This is obvious among all beginners today, but it helped to learn this at the time. As an aside, in a former career I worked with printing on products, so the rationale behind decisions by manufacturers interests me some. Lest the self-appointed response censors jump in with "so what's got to do with crop factor and image quality?", it relates very much. Sensor class, camera size, weight, cost, and the desire to get the most IQ for a given set of equivalent FL options usually play into decisions when purchasing and learning a new system. The greater the crop factor, the lower the IQ in general, but only among sensors and processors at the roughly same type and level of technology. We all know that some of today's M/4 cameras produce better images than some older FF cameras, but there several factors to consider.

Kaib795 Loc: Maryland, USA

I remember taking very good shots with a Nikon D5000 and a kit lens. It's about what you can do and keep the shots sharp. That was a 12 mpx DX camera with a 1.5x crop factor. Here's a shot from it albeit with a 40mm f2.8 Macro lens. What do you think? It's all about getting the most out of your rig.

(Download)

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

I think you did great!. Good focus, sharp as a tack.

Kaib795 Loc: Maryland, USA

Thanks Frank.

So mpx's are not the factor. Just good use of the gear we have. That's a entry level camera but using a Macro lens. I've found that the camera's original kit lens focused better in Live View and could produce stunning shots too.