Why does everyone think a crop sensor increases focal length (Page 9): Talk about "reach"! :sm02: As to the salient point of the query, the operating concept is equivalency. Your final...

Stephan G

BlackRipleyDog wrote:

This notion drives me nuts as well. Kind of like this belief in Russian Collusion. Irrational but it makes sense to some people.
For example - project an image onto a white index card. Then lay a white business card down onto the index card. The business card shows only the center portion of the image being projected. It is not magnified or enhanced in any way. Just a smaller surface. The same with sensors of different sizes.

Talk about "reach"!

As to the salient point of the query, the operating concept is equivalency. Your final result as compared to other systems and/or methods.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Juy wrote:

I see and hear all the time that if you have a so ... (show quote)

Perceived view, Field of View Perception (equivalent FOV) it is a crop, the 600mm has a perceived view of a 900mm on an APS-C (Nikon), Canon is 1.6X (if memory serves me) so 960mm. It is a crop. That is my perception. With some Nikon models you can add another 1.3X by changing the Image Size in the Shooting Menu from DX to 1.3X (24 X 16mm 24mp sensor view becomes 18 X 12mm 15.3mp sensor view) making for a perceived FOV of 1170mm.

Sony's Clear Image Zoom (also a crop, digital crop) goes to 2X, but only for JPEG, does not work with RAW. It is a variable crop.

Optical or Digital crop, it does allow you to fill the frame from distance, but only as a crop, nothing is magnified, other than perceived FOV.. Hope that is helpful. This subject does boomerang a lot.
Cheers.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Fotoserj wrote:

I’ve always tough and still do, this was a marketing coup by some clever advertising artist tu push sell on gullible customers

I strongly disagree. There were no “full frame” DSLRs around when the crop sensors were developed and, for the most part, 35mm photographers were used to thinking of focal length in their old 35mm prime terms. It certainly had a positive effect on selling telephotos, but how else would you describe it to users who were totally unfamiliar with APS format? Field of view makes sense, but was never in common use as a descriptor in those ancient film days.

Andy

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

repleo wrote:

You are basically correct. Life would be much simpler if we referred to lenses by their field of view. With all of the sensor formats nowadays, the focal length is about as informative as the weight of the lens. However, good luck with trying to change the mindsets of the all the old-timers who cut their teeth on 35mm SLR's.

By reference to field of view, do you mean the angle of the dangle? or the height of the length? Seriously now, what reference table did you have in mind? Promise I won't be facetious.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

AndyH wrote:

I strongly disagree. There were no “full frame” DSLRs around when the crop sensors were developed and, for the most part, 35mm photographers were used to thinking of focal length in their old 35mm prime terms. It certainly had a positive effect on selling telephotos, but how else would you describe it to users who were totally unfamiliar with APS format? Field of view makes sense, but was never in common use as a descriptor in those ancient film days.

Andy

I'm sure it has sold a lot of < FF cameras!!!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

olemikey wrote:

Perceived view, Field of View Perception, it is a ... (show quote)

Key operator: Perceived!

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

olemikey wrote:

I'm sure it has sold a lot of < FF cameras!!!

True dat!

But probably fewer wide angles than teles, eh?

Andy

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

I am TRULY AMAZED that in only a short period of time & discussion , this subject has blossomed into 9 pages of debate & explanation. And the sad part about it would be it's repetition despite all the earlier efforts to satisfy the question that seems to never go away????

I have also watched as some topics go on for days and days............WOW.....that's incredible and I guess a Good Thing for those of us who read rather write these posts.

I wish I were smarter and knew the answers to all these things but I guess It Ain't Over Until It Is and so my thoughts of CROPPING the Topic (like the photo) is Ill-advised....haaha

Your devoted follower......me!

old poet

BlackRipleyDog wrote:

This notion drives me nuts as well. Kind of like this belief in Russian Collusion. Irrational but it makes sense to some people.
For example - project an image onto a white index card. Then lay a white business card down onto the index card. The business card shows only the center portion of the image being projected. It is not magnified or enhanced in any way. Just a smaller surface. The same with sensors of different sizes.

None of your politics on this site. We come in all shades.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Retina wrote:

Crop sensor cameras produce good images, giving the impression that you don't need to spend extra on a FF body and lenses to get the same effect using shorter and less expensive lenses. (The early and continued use of "35mm Equiv" on P/S cameras plays a role with this.) In other words, a 200mm lens on a crop body does essentially the same job as a FF 300mm lens and camera, and for a few folks it's not worth keeping all the terminology straight.

Not really a 200mm lens on a FF does pretty much the same as a 200mm lens on a crop sensor but gives a wider field of view If you want the field of view of the 200mm on a crop sensor you can have it on the full frame and feel free to recompose so the field of view is exactly what you want. Say you were not quite level with the crop sensor camera you would have to crop to be level not so with the 200mm on the full frame Something made it into the frame on the left you can move the crop right and still have the field of view you would have had if your framing had been perfect on the crop. There are 5/9ths of the area on the full frame going spare.

If you are filling the frame with your subject on the crop at 200mm then you can choose to include more of the environment with the full frame. The 200mm doesn't become a 300mm lens at all on either camera body.

Anyone care to work out the crop from 36 to 24 mpix on a full frame?

gmango85

Use your geometry and measure the diagonal of the sensors and you'll see the difference.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

blackest wrote:

Not really a 200mm lens on a FF does pretty much t... (show quote)

Which is why photo from a ~20mp D500 is almost exactly the same as crop mode from a ~45mp D850.

BlackRipleyDog

Les Brown wrote:

None of your politics on this site. We come in all shades.

I say two words and you were triggered? Run away - Run away.

Juy Loc: Delaware

ecobin wrote:

Of course a crop sensor doesn’t increase reach - only the lens can do that. Here’s a quote that I love which answers the question:

"...the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already..." – Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Very well put

BlackRipleyDog

olemikey wrote:

I'm sure it has sold a lot of < FF cameras!!!

Well, the 35mm or FF is the gold standard. They started out with smaller sensors until the D3 and D700. Of course they stuck with it. A 50mm lens would still be a 50mm lens in all it's characteristics. Nothing nefarious about it. What was Nikon going to do, walk away from the untold millions of legacy glass already out there and devote their entire R&D into DX lenses? Only time will tell how successful their new Z-mount will be.